dripping atomizer

The Most Ridiculous Vaping “Research” Report has Arrived

Last Updated:

One of the core foundations of Western culture is education. For years, a lot of emphasis has been put on it. After all, these students will be leading the next generation into a world full of both light and darkness, much of which is captured by sensationalist headlines.

While all universities are recognised and respected by the international community, a small handful truly stand out from the rest of the pack. Institutions such as University of Oxford and University of Cambridge here in the UK are widely regarded as the crème of the crop. In the United States, you have the Ivy League universities as the notable academic institutions that stand out. This list includes universities such as Harvard, Princeton and Yale. When researchers from these establishments release research reports, people especially tend to listen. This is exactly what happened when Yale researchers recently claimed that ‘the dripping method’ further exposes vapers to toxic chemicals. We thought the “sperm incident” was the most ridiculous piece of “research” put out. This currently takes the cake.

In any event, there’s one massive problem with this new report: these so-called Yale elites didn’t exactly understand how ‘dripping’ works. They made a novice mistake by calling it ‘the dripping method’ which, in all honesty, can be quite confusing. As these Yale cream of the crop researchers defined it, ‘the dripping method’ is when a vaper drips e-liquid directly onto an atomiser and then immediately inhales thereafter, which, in their thinking, exposes vapers to high temperatures and toxic chemicals. The definition is mostly accurate but their thought that this exposes you to unusually high temperatures is completely mistaken. This is because dripping e-liquid onto your atomiser is done in order to saturate the wick before the coil heats. What the researchers thought was that vapers drip e-liquid directly onto heated coils. No one does that.

Furthermore, the amateurishness showed by the question structure itself, and further exposed the lack of knowledge they have on vaping. What they should have asked is if these vapers drip right onto their atomiser or fill a tank prior to usage. Instead, we got a flat out stupid question, one that is essentially incoherent and subject to misinterpretation, even for experienced vapers.

Additionally, of course most vapers don’t actually drip e-liquid drops on their atomiser each time they inhale. And *EVEN IF* a vaper was to do this, it doesn’t involve higher temperatures than vaping any other way as the coils are not yet heated. As mentioned, most people don’t vape like that. We fill a tank with e-liquid and then vape until the tank runs low. We then refill our tank with e-liquid and let the juice settle for a few minutes before taking a puff. We want to get the wick coils all nice and moist/saturated prior to inhalation. But even so. Again, assuming a vaper drips and takes a puff right away, this is also fine and won’t expose you to higher temperatures than normal.

What’s more concerning is that these researchers used the findings to rip vaping. Over 25% (26.1%) of the respondents answered that they used ‘the dripping method.’ What most probably thought the question meant was if they were dripping e-liquid into a tank. That can be seen by the fact that an additional 25% of respondents said they didn’t know whether they used the dripping method or not.

Luckily, a few professors shot back at the shoddy report in a highly critical comment. It noted that Riccardo Polosa, one of the main researchers, received fees and funding from various Big Pharma groups and EU e-cig trade association groups. Obviously, the huge conflict of interest is eye popping. Shocked? Not at all.

What’s more unfortunate is that every major media outlet picked up this report and ate it up like a kid in a candy store. The damage has been done. We will of course continue to fight back on baseless reporting but reports like this make it that much more difficult.